Alarm systems, such as fire alarm and security systems, typically include one or more centralized alarm panels that receive information from various sensors that are distributed throughout a structure or area. For example, referring to FIG. 1, a typical fire alarm system 10 may include a plurality of initiating devices 12 (e.g. smoke detectors, manually-actuated pull stations, etc.) that are connected to one or more alarm panels 14. During normal operation of the alarm system 10, the alarm panel 14 may monitor electrical signals associated with each of the initiating devices 12 for variations that may represent the occurrence of an alarm condition. For example, a variation in a particular electrical signal may represent the detection of smoke by a smoke detector in a corresponding area, or “zone,” of a building in which the smoke detector is located, and may cause the alarm panel 14 to enter an alarm mode. The alarm panel 14 may be configured to respond to such a condition by initiating certain predefined actions, such as activating one or more notification appliances 16 (e.g. strobes, sirens, public announcement systems, etc.) within the monitored building.
The exemplary alarm system 10 may also include a workstation 18, such as a personal computer (PC) or server, which is operatively connected to the alarm panel 14 of the alarm system 10. If the alarm system 10 includes a plurality of alarm panels 14, the panels 14 may be networked, such as in a ring configuration, and the workstation 18 may be connected to the network as a network node as shown in FIG. 2. The workstation 18 may be loaded with one or more software applications that provide human operators of the system 10 with a user interface (UI) for monitoring and controlling certain aspects of the alarm system 10. For example, a UI may provide an operator with a graphical representation of the alarm system 10, including all of the individual initiating devices 12 and notification appliances 16 (collectively referred to as “points”) within the system 10. The UI may allow an operator to observe the functional status of the points 12 and 16, and may further allow the operator to activate, deactivate, or otherwise exert control over the operation of the points 12 and 16. For example, the UI may allow an operator to readily determine whether a particular point in the system is functioning properly, and to dispatch service personnel if it is not. The UI may further allow an operator to determine the specific initiating device or devices 12 that were tripped upon the occurrence of an alarm condition. Still further, the UI may allow an operator to manually activate one or more specified notification appliances 16 within the system 10, such as for delivering a public announcement.
A first shortcoming associated with many existing alarm systems of the type described above is that UI software applications that were implemented in such systems in the past are only capable of accommodating a limited total number of points (i.e. initiating devices and notification appliances). For example, UI applications in many existing alarm systems are configured to provide an interface for a maximum of 50,000 points. Until recently, such capacity was thought to be sufficient for most applications. However, some large-scale users of alarm systems, such as hotel chains and universities, have begun to expand their alarm systems beyond, and in some cases well beyond, the point capacities of their UI applications. One solution for handling such expansion is to modify the UI software in existing alarm systems to provide greater point capacities, but this is generally recognized as being an impractically expensive and burdensome endeavor. Instead, most large-scale users have simply resorted to installing additional workstations, each with its own, independent UI software application having an independent point capacity. For example, in the exemplary system 20 shown in FIG. 3, if a first workstation 22 and associated group of networked alarm panels 23 provide a UI capacity of 50,000 points 27, a second workstation 24 and associated group of networked alarm panels 25 may be added to provide an interface for an additional 50,000 points 29 to achieve a total of 100,000 interfaced points. This solution is not ideal, as it fails to provide a single, unified UI, and therefore requires personnel to separately monitor each of the workstations 22 and 24. This can be extremely cumbersome, especially if additional workstations are numerous and/or spatially remote from one another.
A second shortcoming associated with many existing alarm systems is commonly realized by large-scale users having multiple, remotely-located sites that require monitoring. Particularly, such users must generally employ a separate workstation having its own, independent UI at each remote site. This requires the user to employ personnel at each site to monitor the various workstations, which can be very expensive and logistically burdensome. Alternatively, referring to the exemplary arrangement shown in FIG. 4, the user may choose to employ a third party service provider to monitor the user's sites from a remote monitoring facility. Under this type of arrangement, the user is typically required to pay the service provider a substantial subscription fee, and generally must install additional data transmission components (e.g. telephone lines) in each of the alarm panels of its alarm system to facilitate communication with the monitoring facility. In addition to being very expensive, this approach generally precludes the user from being able to comprehensively monitor the status of its own alarm system in real-time.